Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. Petitioner Chandran is the father of detenu Mahesh Kumar, who is an accused in Crime No.448 of 1995 on the file of Rajamangalam Police Station registered for offences punishable under Secs.147, 148 and 307, I.P.C. read with Sec.9(1)(b) of Explosive Substances Act. This crime was originally registered as Crime No.1152 of 1995 on 17. 1995 by Korattur Police Station and later transferred to Rajamangalam Police Station. Petitioner has pleaded for issue of a habeas for the production of his son, so that he may be set at liberty, alleging that the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, has been extending remands without even a requisition from the concerned police mechanically and hence continued detention would be illegal. It has also been stated in the affidavit of the petitioner that with an application the detenu surrendered before the Magistrate on 8. 1995, but the same was not accepted and he was directed to appear before the Court of Session, Chengalpattu. 2. Notice was ordered to the Inspector of Police, Korattur Police Station as well the Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station, We also called for the records from the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. 3. Thiru D.Balaraman, Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam, has sworn to an affidavit, which discloses that the detenu was arrested on 27. 1995 to 8.00 a.m. by Korattur Police Station and judicial remand was ordered on the same day by Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur. The remand was to be in force till 8. 1995. Allegation of illegal detention between 17. 1995 and 27. 1995 has been denied by this officer. He has further stated in the affidavit that the detenu was directed to be released on interim bail on 27. 1995. The detenu surrendered before the Court of Session, Chengalpattu, on 8. 1995. Thereafter, the detenu was produced on 18. 1995 before the Magistrate and remand was extended. It was in between that the crime was transferred from Korattur Police Station to Rajamangalam Police Station on the ground of jurisdiction. According to deponent, on 28. 1995 when the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, from Central Prison, his subordinate could not reach the court in time. However, remand was extended by the learned Magistrate till 9. 1995. Thereafter, the detenu was produced on 9. 1995 and the remand was extended till 20.9.1995. On 20.9.1995, remand was extended till 10. 1995. Subsequently, remand stood extended till 110. However, remand was extended by the learned Magistrate till 9. 1995. Thereafter, the detenu was produced on 9. 1995 and the remand was extended till 20.9.1995. On 20.9.1995, remand was extended till 10. 1995. Subsequently, remand stood extended till 110. 1995. On these occasions, remand was extended by the learned Magistrate, on the oral request of the prosecution and on production of the detenu, before the said Magistrate. 4. Dr.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in almost all the courts of Magistrates remands are extended as a matter of course without application of mind and very rarely remand extensions were requested either orally or in writing. Even the case diary, most often, was not produced before the Magistrates. 5. Mr.P. Govindarajan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that usually written remand requisitions are preferred for extension, or almost certainly oral requisitions are made, on production of case diary. He submitted that the detenu is in remand on valid orders passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and even if it be that on 28. 1995, policemen were not present before that Court to plead for extension of remand, learned Magistrate must be deemed to have applied her mind to the records available in court while passing an order of remand extension till 9. 1995. 6. The records summoned from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, show that on 28. 1995 she had passed an order extending remand till 9. 1995 even though the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor was on leave and apparently no representation was made on behalf of the prosecution for extension of remand. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is a speaking order, which indicates that she had applied her mind to the gravity of the offences alleged, on the basis of records available in her court as well the fact of investigation having been transferred from Korattur to Rajamangalam Police Station. She was further conscious that a remand extension report was not preferred before her. Any Magistrate authorising detention, or extending the same, must prima facie give reasons or atleast makes it evident. That the case diary has been produced and on application of mind remand was ordered or extended, as the case may be. Only then, it would be possible for higher courts to inter application of mind. Any Magistrate authorising detention, or extending the same, must prima facie give reasons or atleast makes it evident. That the case diary has been produced and on application of mind remand was ordered or extended, as the case may be. Only then, it would be possible for higher courts to inter application of mind. Time and again, courts have held that directing remand or ordering extension of remand are not mere mechanical formalities, but involve application of judicial mind to the facts placed before court, before orders of passed. In the instant case, though application of mind by the learned Magistrate is evident in the orders passed on 28. 1995, subsequent remands do not indicate any material to show that extension of remand was requested and on the basis of the said requisition, remands were extended. However, we have the affidavit of D.Balaraman, Inspector of Police. Rajamangalam, the contents of which show that oral requests were made for extension of remand on every occasion other than 28. 1995. We have no reason to doubt this statement by the present investigating officer. Consequently, we are satisfied that, on application of mind, learned Magistrate had extended the remand. On 8. 1995, when the detenu surrendered, he was directed by the Magistrate to surrender before the Court of Session, Chengalput, on the next day, since he was on interim bail on orders of that court. Prima facie, we cannot fault that order. 7. As to the procedure to be followed while remanding or directing extension of remand, enough case law is available, which the Magistrates are bound to follow strictly. In Syed Kaleemullah and another v. The Appraising Officer, Special Investigation Branch, Customs House, Madras-1 and another, 1993 L.W. (Crl.) 317, one of us (Arunachalam, J.) had held as follows: “A Magistrate has jurisdiction to pass an order of remand despite the absence of any formal written application or a request for such remand being made by the police or the prosecution and that it would be doing violence to the plain language of Secs. 167(2) and 309(2), Crl.P.C. by reading into them a requirement of a formal application for remand or in any case, an insistent request therefor. 167(2) and 309(2), Crl.P.C. by reading into them a requirement of a formal application for remand or in any case, an insistent request therefor. There cannot be a second opinion, that application of mind by the remanding Magistrate would be required for extension of remand, but that will be a question of fact which will vary from case to case.......It will not only be better, but it will almost always be necessary, that if extension of remand is required, an application is filed setting out the reasons for judicial scrutiny. However, merely because because extension of remand has not been asked for by the prosecuting agency, it cannot be concluded, that the remanding Magistrate has no power to order extension of remand, if on the available material, he was of the opinion that extension of remand was necessary in the interests of justice. If it were to be held, that without a plea for extension of remand, the. remanding Magistrate cannot act and that he has to necessarily set at liberty the concerned accused, even if the crime was grave enough, it is then possible the comprehend a court becoming a mere powerless figurehead if either due to negligence or collusion, remand extension applications are not presented, even in grave crimes. The ultimate authority is the remanding Court and the discretion to extend the remand cannot be bartered away to the whims of the prosecuting agency, who for reasons best known to them, omit to plead for extension of remand.” S.M. Ali. Mohamed, J., In State by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madras v. Mathivanan and three others, (1994)2 L W. (Crl.) 557, has stated as follows: “It is well-settled that a formal written application for extension of remand is not necessary” Learned Judge has expressed his concurrence with the view expressed in Syed Kaleemullah’s case, 1992 L.W. (Crl.) 317. 8. It is rather unfortunate that in spite of the legal position being clear, the investigating agency most often do not prefer applications in writing for extension of remand. Equally, the Magistracy must strictly follow, the letter and spirit of the law, and indicate while ordering remand or extension of remand that they had passed those orders after application of mind. It is hoped that these formalities would be strictly complied with in future, for liberty of an individual cannot be sought to be treated casually. 9. Equally, the Magistracy must strictly follow, the letter and spirit of the law, and indicate while ordering remand or extension of remand that they had passed those orders after application of mind. It is hoped that these formalities would be strictly complied with in future, for liberty of an individual cannot be sought to be treated casually. 9. We are unable to hold in the instant case that the detenu is in illegal custody, in pursuance of an invalid order remand. If that be so, no ground, whatever, exists for issue of a habeas. This habeas corpus petition shall stand dismissed, of course, subject to the observations aforestated.